Posted on 08/02/2003 4:47:30 AM PDT by DPB101
With his movie about the death of Jesus under attack as anti-Semitic, Mel Gibson is trying to build an audience and a defense for his project by screening it for evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, right-wing pundits, Republicans, a few Jewish commentators and Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
Gibson has poured $25 million of his money into the movie, "The Passion," calling it the most authentic and biblically accurate film about Jesus' death.
Now, seven months before its scheduled release next year on Ash Wednesday, the film has provoked a bitter uproar that antagonists on both sides warn could undermine years of bridge-building between Christians and Jews.
The handpicked audiences who have seen the film defend it as the most moving, reverential -- and violent -- depiction of Jesus' suffering and death ever put on screen. Its detractors, who have read a script but not seen the film, say it is a modern version of the medieval passion plays that portrayed Jews as "Christ-killers" and stoked anti-Jewish violence.
The controversy has been cast by many of his supporters as the Jews versus Mel Gibson. But it began when several Catholic scholars voiced concern about the project because of Gibson's affiliation with a splinter Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 repudiated the charge of deicide against the Jews.
Gibson has screened "The Passion" for friendly audiences but has refused to show it to his critics, who include members of Jewish groups and biblical scholars.
In Washington, D.C., he held a screening for the conservative cyber columnist Matt Drudge, the columnists Cal Thomas and Peggy Noonan, and staff members of the Senate Republican Conference and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, among many others.
In Colorado Springs, Colo., a center of evangelical support, the film drew raves. A convention of the Legionaries of Christ, a traditionalist Roman Catholic order of priests, saw a preview, as did Rush Limbaugh.
Audiences wept, and many were awestruck. "Mel Gibson is the Michaelangelo of this generation," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.
"It's going to be a classic," said Deal W. Hudson, publisher of Crisis, a conservative Catholic magazine. "It's going to be the go-to film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the passion of Christ."
Gibson has claimed that his movie will be true to the gospel account of the last hours of Jesus' life. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John differ greatly, presenting Rashomon-like accounts of the roles of the Romans and Jews in the crucifixion.
A committee of Bible scholars who read a version of the script said that it was not true to Scripture or Catholic teaching and that it badly twisted the role of Jewish leaders in Jesus' death. The problem, the scholars said, was not that Gibson was anti-Semitic, but that his film could unintentionally incite anti-Semitic violence.
One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a theology professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was, this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
Gibson, who directed and co-wrote the film, is vehement that any criticism is based on an outdated script that was stolen. He declined to give an interview, and his company, Icon Productions, says it is showing the movie only to selected journalists and critics.
But he said in a statement, "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie. 'The Passion' is a film meant to inspire, not offend."
The furor began last March, when the committee of scholars -- five Catholics and four Jews -- asked Icon Productions to show them the script. Five of the scholars hold endowed chairs at their universities, and all have long been engaged in interfaith dialogue. The group was assembled by staff members at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
These organizations were wary because they had spent years drafting guidelines for ridding passion plays of anti-Semitism. Some of these same scholars had consulted on the overhaul of the world's most famous passion play at Oberammergau, Germany.
The scholars say the other reason for concern was Gibson's strain of Catholicism. He built and belongs to a Los Angeles church that is part of a growing but fractured movement known as Catholic traditionalism. Considered beyond the pale even by conservatives, these traditionalists reject the Second Vatican Council and every pope since then, and celebrate Mass in Latin.
Gibson also set off alarm bells among the scholars when news reports quoted him as saying that his script had drawn on the diaries of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th-century mystic whose visions included such extra-biblical details as having the Jewish high priest order that Christ's cross be built in the Jewish temple.
Icon Productions did not respond to the scholars' request to see the script. But someone leaked a copy to one of them: the Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, a professor of social ethics and director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies program at Catholic Theological Union. Pawlikowski said in an interview that the script had come to him from a friend, who got it from someone else -- he did not know whom.
The scholars sent a report to Icon complaining about the script, again receiving no response. After excerpts of the report appeared in the media -- both sides accuse the other of leaking them -- the scholars began to air their grievances.
"This was one of the worst things we had seen in describing responsibility for the death of Christ in many, many years," Pawlikowski said in an interview.
In particular, they objected that the Jewish priest, Caiaphas, is depicted as intimidating Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, into going along with the crucifixion. (Several people who saw the film in July say that the version they saw contained this portrayal.) The scholars say this distorts the fact that the Romans were the occupying power, and the Jewish authorities their agents.
Paul Lauer, director of marketing for Icon, said that Gibson's rendering was not anti-Semitic but simply followed the New Testament. "There are some sympathetic to Christ and some who clearly want to get rid of this guy," he said. "And that's clearly scriptural. You can't get away from the fact that there are some Jews who wanted this guy dead."
The script the scholars read was dated October 2002. Lauer acknowledged that filming began that same month. But scripts often change after shooting begins, he said.
Icon Productions threatened to sue the scholars and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops soon apologized, and said that it had neither authorized the scholars' committee nor the report.
Gibson has since sought to mend fences with the bishops. He recently met in Washington with officials of the bishops conference, and has shown the film to Cardinals Francis George of Chicago and Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver.
But the scholars and the Anti-Defamation League have not backed down. They are pressing Gibson to show them the rough cut that he has screened for others.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said: "If you say this is not anti-Semitic and this is a work of love and reconciliation, why are you afraid to show it to us?"
But Lauer said, "There is no way on God's green earth that any of those people will be invited to a screening. They have shown themselves to be dishonorable."
Those who have seen it say that the movie is brutally graphic, dwelling at length on a scene that renders Jesus a bloody piece of flesh before he is even nailed to the cross. He is beaten with a leather strap studded with metal points that, when slapped across a tabletop, stick in the wood like spikes.
The beating in the film is administered by Roman soldiers, said Hudson, the Catholic magazine editor. "By the time the Romans get through with him, you've forgotten what the Jews might have done."
Gibson's vision "pays tribute to Judaism," Lauer said, by underscoring Christianity's Jewish roots. The actor who plays Jesus, Jim Caviezel, appears Semitic, a far cry from the Nordic icon of popular paintings.
All the movie's dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin. (Scholars say that this belies Gibson's claim of total authenticity, because the Romans would have spoken Greek). Gibson had originally said the film would have no English subtitles. But he is screening it with them, and may allow the subtitles to stay, Lauer said.
"The Passion" has no distributor, but Lauer said that "two major studios" were interested. And Gibson may distribute it himself, he said. The controversy, he said, had built a considerable buzz about the movie.
"You can't buy that kind of publicity," he said.
I'm with you. I will reserve one. I wonder if it will be like trying to find a conservative author's book in a major bookstore. You know, only one copy, or we don't have it, maybe you would like this instead?...
Good points. Some of Gibson's critics focus on the idea that rejection of Vatican II must also include a rejection of absolving the Jewish people of the charge of deicide (killing Christ). I have read and heard a lot of debates about Vatican II but never one that focused on the issue of the crucifixion of Christ. The implied insinuation is that someone who has problems with Vatican II must also be antisemitic. There is no such connection.
I consulted my father on this who taught at a Catholic college BEFORE Vatican II. He was never taught to hold "the Jews" collectively as an entire people as guilty for the crucifixion. Conservative Catholics who like the old Latin Mass or who disapprove of the liberalization and modernization of the Church after Vatican II are not more likely to be anti-Jewish or anti-semitic.
Waving a flag of Nazi hysteria at contemporary Catholics really does very little to elevate religious discussion. The implied slurs and slanders are out of order. The style of worship preferred by Catholics has nothing to do with the antisemitic controversies alleged. If you recite the "Our Father" in Latin ("Pater Noster"), the words mean the same thing. You don't suddenly become more likely to be antisemitic just because the words are in Latin.
Whatever quotes are attributed to Mel Gibson's father are his words and his alone. Contemporary Catholics are not burdened by a "collective guilt" for whatever controversies from European history the non-Catholic critics decide should be issued as renewed charges carrying polemical significance and malicious insinuations.
Is there any word on distribution to theatres? In my rural area, I'm just curious.
You made a good point:
As long as Christians, and Catholics in particular, capitulate and 'tone down' whatever others find offensive, no matter how true, then all is right with the world.
One must earn respect. If Christians don't feel strongly enough to stand up and say "NO" when someone sues to remove a Nativity Scene from a town green, they should expect people to roll over them. I know about the "turn the other cheek" stuff but there comes a time when if you don't stand up, your faith is in danger.
Latin is not "God's language." Basically, it was the equivalent of English at the time that Christianity spread throughout Western Europe. The Franks, Gauls, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Britons, Irish, Visigoths, Spaniards, and Italians were unified by their common "Latin" Christianity. Other languages have also been languages of the Church - Greek, Syriac, Slavonic, etc. The scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (translated into Latin later). Because Christianity in the West developed within the domain of the Roman Empire, it was inevitable that the written language of that civilization (Latin) was used to spread the writings of Christianity. Greek has remained the liturgical language of the Greek Orthodox Church.
English is now used by both the Anglicans and Catholics in the English speaking world. The only difference with Latin is that followers of Jesus like Peter and Paul interacted with Latin-speaking peoples during the first century A.D. If a sacred character has come to be associated with it, it is because of its proximity to the lives of the apostles during their missionary efforts in the first century, close to the actual life of Christ. The Greek of the New Testament also has this association. Keeping true to the metaphor, it would be more accurate to think of Aramaic or Hebrew as "God's language" because Christ would have spoken these directly. Scholars tend to think he probably also spoke some Greek. But, really, obviously, "God" would understand all human languages and in a theological sense, God is not limited to the sociology and anthropology of historic human languages. We would expect there to be many languages in Heaven.
The sacred qualities associated with Latin have a lot to do with its being a language for Christian prayers and the Catholic Mass, the central rite of Catholic worship, for many centuries. Numerous Christian writings were composed in Latin during the Middle Ages, etc. So you have the image of devout Christians speaking and writing in Latin as a cultural phenomenon. Ecclesiastical Latin is a vestige of an era associated with the spread of Christianity and the age of saints. Whether the "Our Father" is recited in Latin ("Pater Noster"), in Greek, or in English or any other language, the effect is the same. The sound of Gregorian Chant sung in Latin certainly can seem to have a very mystical quality. Whether this is because of cultural associations or an actual inner holiness to sacred music is a source of interesting speculation.
Good point. From a Catholic standpoint alone, which I am, much capitulation has already been made in the 30 plus years since Vatican II. And, sadly, now those Catholics who advocate a return to reverence or adherence to Rome or whatever, are labeled as fringe elements and right wing, by others and the liberal media (pouncing like lions on this juicy treat) and even by other Catholics. Witness the stir that Fr. Pavone (Priests for Life) or Cardinal Arinze cause, just among Catholics!!
I'm getting sick and tired of all these "Bible scholars" who run around telling everyone what the Bible "really says"---as if Gutenberg and Wycliffe hadn't solved that problem for everybody. Besides what's this stuff about not being "true to Catholic teaching"? I haven't heard of anybody with real doctrinal authority in the Catholic Church denouncing the script---just a bunch of "progressives" who'd be disciplined if the Holy See could find its cojones again. Lookee--I've got a Bible; I've read it; I'm going to the movie, and I'll decide if the movie is true to Scripture or Catholic teaching.
The problem, the scholars said, was not that Gibson was anti-Semitic, but that his film could unintentionally incite anti-Semitic violence.
Outrageous anti-democratic, almost totalitarian thinking. Quit treating the American public in general, and Christians in particular, as a herd of behemos that have to be shunted into a corral lest they stampede. "Unintentionally incite..."??? Yeah, and the display of an American flag could "unintentionally incite" attacks on Muslims, by this supercilious "logic."
One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a theology professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was, this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
"Great crises in Christian-Jewish relations"? You don't provoke a "crisis" with another religion by setting forth in print or film the core narratives of your own religion (speaking of that, I wonder what "Sistah" Boys' is?) Boys should let the Magisterium decide if Mel's film is doctrinally accurate, not Abe Foxman.
Do a google news search any day of the week and you will find lawsuits filed by the ACLU across the nation which seek to tear down the Christian faith.
We are not the Soviet Union. Bolsheviks and Bolshevik judges do not rule us. We need to take back our country, our traditions and our heritage.
That would likely be St Cloud or near the U of M, the two hubs of PC in MN-- although Duluth has become a Green Party center.
You raised a good point. I'm not sure they believe the film could cause violence, but by repeating the charge, they are hoping violence might be incited. Who would cause the violence? Not Christians. With the author's logic, it would be Gibson's fault if some rowdy Jews got violent about the film. The rowdy Jews would, of course, be as innocent as doves.
The battery in the world's brain is just about depleted.
One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a theology professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was, this wasn't really something you could fix..."
"...All the way through the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty..."
"...We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
I've not found any information on just what his status is.
Anti-Semitism is stupid and false charges of bias by any minority is even more stupid. Its like "crying wolf" and when it happens for real no-one will be listening.
But the scholars and the Anti-Defamation League have not backed down. They are pressing Gibson to show them the rough cut that he has screened for others.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said: "If you say this is not anti-Semitic and this is a work of love and reconciliation, why are you afraid to show it to us?"
Gibson's vision "pays tribute to Judaism," Lauer said, by underscoring Christianity's Jewish roots. The actor who plays Jesus, Jim Caviezel, appears Semitic...
Those who acknowledge a higher power than the state are threats to the liberal establishment. Liberals cannot tolerate those who judge, who are not cattle,who will fight on principle.
That is why they must demonize Mel Gibson and his family.
The Roman Empire was a big place, and just because you were a soldier in the Roman army, it did not mean that you were from Rome (or even had set foot in what is now Italy). People in the eastern part of the Empire mostly spoke Greek, and it's from these people that the army stationed in the middle-east drew its recruits
WHO CARES? Where were all these people when a propaganda piece like Bowling for Columbine came out? Were they complaining? What happened to "artistic license" (ala Mapplethorpe) or "artistic expression" (ala Piss Christ) or "art for art's sake" (the Madonna covered in elephant crap)?????? WHERE WERE THEY?? You see they lose on their own terms. Either everyone gets to offend, or no one does. They can shove their complaints up their bum.
I haven't seen the movie obviously, but I can't imagine it is "anti-semetic" unless "anti-semetic" means "about a religion that isn't (secular, non-culturally oppresive) judaism."
What a load.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.